Statistics

[henridevero]

thx centaur for this contribution.
I did higher maths at school and i have pondered the stats on cock sizes. your opening post is fairly comprehensive.
I have always thought cock sizes must follow a Poisson distribution (not a normal distribution), since cocks below 2" are unfeasible and those at less than zero impossible in the real world. whereas cocks at lengths more than the mean are theoretically open-ended (for instance my cock is 28.5")
Also, what about genetic origin. for instance some west african tribes have large cocks, whilst japanese guys are so small they might as well go trans. so, in London, it depends on the ethnic origin of the guys in your borough. (incidentally, what's with this genetic trait found in french Canadians? who seem to be better hung than the average)
I like to think of a regiment in the british army, say 10,000 strong. then 1 in 10 guys are 8+, 1 in 100 9+, and 1 in 1000 are 10+. On the first day of the Somme in 1916 the british army lost 60,000 men. of these 60 would have 10+ inch cocks, 600 would be 9+ and 6000 at 8+.

 

[D_Jimmy Jammer]

I'm rather inclined to think that the data is reasonably accurate.

Umm..
"From March 11 to 17, 2001 a total 401 males over the age of 18 were measured, one at a time, by qualified medical staff (protected by Ansell Medi-Touch gloves) in private tents at the Dady Rock nightclub in Cancun, Mexico. Of the 401 men, 300 were able to gain an erection for measurement - a success rate of only 75%.
That sample group, let alone the psuedo-science, is next to useless. :tongue:

it's initially plausible and probably close enough to reality..

I don't mean to be pedantic but on what basis is it 'plausible' and, particularly, why is it 'close enough to reality'?
The statement, frankly, is meaningless. Have a good think about it.
Replication is the basis of scientific method. I'd want to see the 'private tents' (forget the gloves) data reproduced over and again, especially in different countries (ethnicities.)
Forget, too, 'distributions' and 'deviations' - until you have that data. :biggrin1:

 

[D_Crystallized Ginger]

Inspired by some conversations that I've had, and curious to know just how likely it is that a guy is telling me the truth when he says, "I've met x guys over 10 inches," I looked into the stats to see what the numbers actually say about the frequency of different sized cocks among men.

Before I explain my results, I want to come clean about some assumptions that I make. There are three.

1. Human penis length follows a normal distribution.

Click here if you don't understand what a normal distribution is:

Normal distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The mean (average) length of the human penis is 5.9".

3. The standard deviation of the human penis is 0.8".

Click here if you don't understand what a standard deviation is:

Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All my assumptions are, of course suspect, but I think that I will be criticised mostly on the basis of the 2nd and 3rd ones. I got the data from the following source:

ansell - education

I'm rather inclined to think that the data is reasonably accurate. That is, it's initially plausible, and probably close enough to reality to draw some interesting conclusions from. I'm not suggesting that the data is perfect, but it's probably good enough that we can learn something from it.

This is the only study I've seen where the results are not self-reported. I'm likely to be criticised because there is a sampling error inherent in the test, in that perhaps guys with bigger dicks might be inclined to volunteer. I'm willing to accept that criticism, and say that the real average might be lower than the one given by this study.

I've made a spreadsheet indicating what it actually means for there to be a normally distributed variable with a mean of 5.9" and a standard deviation of 0.8", which I have attached to this post.

I will explain each of the columns by reference to one example row, the 7.00" row.

The second column, "Probability" indicates the area under a standard normal curve to the left of the size in question. It tells you the proportion of the population that is likely to be below the indicated size. So, a 7.00" dick would most likely be bigger than 91.5% of a randomly selected group of guys.

The next column indicates what proportion of guys would have dicks in the 7.00" to 7.25" range.

The "This is a '1 in x' size" column tells us that 7.00" (for example) is a "1 in 12" cock.

The "Number in a group of the given size" is just the "Differences in area" column multiplied by 6.7 billion. So one would expect to find 130,020,526 guys between 7.00" and 7.25" in a group of 6.7 billion people (half of them, men).

The last column is the one that is most interesting to me. A 7.00" cock is the same number of standard deviations away from the mean as a 6-0 (72") tall man's height is away from the mean height for men. This means that you probably know as many guys with 7.00" dicks (or longer) as you know guys who are 6-0 tall (or taller).

Of course, I'm not claiming that this is the absolute truth, but I am saying that this study, as inadequate as I'm sure it is, is better than a lot of other studies on the subject. And it is certainly a better indicator of how many cocks of different sizes there are than the subjective impression that most of us have from seeing pictures on LPSG, Monstercocktube.com or from the claims of guys in the chat room.

I think there's reason for us to treat the claim that someone has a 10" dick with as much suspicion as if he claimed that he was 6-11 tall.

Your thoughts?

where does this world stats come from?

 

[Bob Ross]

where does this world stats come from?

I believe he was using the Lifestyles Study, but I could be wrong...What I've always wanted to know was how the Lifestyles Study got their measurements (i.e. "bone-pressed" ruler, NBP ruler, tape measure, other)

 

[D_Crystallized Ginger]

I don't have any statistical data to back me up but, I've mostly been with black guys of different ethnicities. I have been with a couple of white guys. The black guys that I've been with have average at least 8 inches. Most were 8.5-9. A few were 7. I've been with or have personally seen guys and have friends that are at least 10 inches. 6 to be total. One of Them is 5'8 and he's 10.5. The ones that were at least 10" were Jamaican or Trinidadian. Carribean guys have a more dense population of big dicks. The white guys I've been with or seen in person have averaged 6.5.

So let's say I was with 20 black guys, I would estimate 13 had dicks from 8-10", 5 were 7-8 and 2 were 10 and over. Not uncommon for me to see regular sized 8-8.5" dicks. At least that's regular for me. I personally haven't seen any black guys under 7 yet. But I have noticed that southern guys have bigger dicks than the rest of the region as well as large cities, except for la. Jamaicains and trinidadians consistently have the largest with at least 8.5 being the norm.

Sorry for typos if any, I'm typing on my phone.

how can you be sure of the measurements you reported?? have you personally measured them or do you believe what they claim about their size?

 

[D_Crystallized Ginger]

I believe he was using the Lifestyles Study, but I could be wrong...What I've always wanted to know was how the Lifestyles Study got their measurements (i.e. "bone-pressed" ruler, NBP ruler, tape measure, other)

exactly... there are too many misty data in this statistics...

 

[Magnus_Phallus]

Can we all agree that a 10 inche penis is
a very uncommon even exceptional thing?

If so than we have a general consensus
and in the absence of actual reliable data
that is as good as it gets.